Thanks, Wilber
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 1:54 AM
Subject: weddings (was EOS Re: 200mm/f2.8 IS vs 200mm/f1.8 DO IS)
Bill
go grab a wedding magazine
Where did you get that information? I can barely understand that it
might be popular with fashion photographers (they'll try and/or do
anything to be different) but I cannot figure out where a wedding
photographer would find a use for any 200mm lens.
I worked as an assistant to a wedding photographer back when I was in
college (longer ago that I'd like to remember) and more than 90% of our
shots were with the slightly wider than normal 90mm lens (on a 6x7
Koni-Omega). We'd shoot a few portraits with a 150mm on a Hasselblad,
but never anything longer.
perhaps fashion has moved on
With the change to 35mm, I can't imagine using lenses longer than
85-100mm for anything. In addition, I really can't imagine investing
I found my 100-300 (effectively a 200-500) on my 20D gave me some good
shots of the ring being put on the finger, close ups of faces, and
'kiss the bride' shots through out the ceremony at tables without
putting my face in the way.
of course I don't need to sell you on the use of the 50mm and the 90mm
for other stuff
the money for a lens as expensive as the EF 200mm f/1.8 to be used for
as few shallow-depth-of-field shots as you might want to take in the
average wedding. A very bad business decision on the part of the
wedding photographer.
In addition, it was really only the digital era that drove medium format
out of the wedding business and most wedding photographers that I know
are using 10D-20D-30D (NOT 1D or 1Ds) so the 200/1.8 becomes a 320/1.8,
even LESS useful for wedding photographer.
Mr. Bill
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
